Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, the statement that semantic ambiguity must always be due to syntactic ambiguity is certainly untrue: The two different readings of "He's mad" that TKR provides in their comment are due to the semantic ambiguity of the lexical item "mad" - this is called lexical ambiguity - while the syntactic structure is completely identical.
In both cases there's polysemy, but while lexical ambiguity is a specific, finite number of alternative meanings, semantic ambiguity is open-ended; you're unable to create a complete list. In this example the list of relevant meanings is strictly two items: "club" meaning a wooden blunt trauma weapon, and "club" as an establishment where people ...
A pragmatic ambiguity consists in alternative uses of one meaning relative to a given context ... a pragmatic ambiguity by its very nature cannot be disambiguated by the context. There is no information in your question about the context of the question, but it seems to me that it should be quite clear from the circumstances of the question ...
Some parsing techniques can directly accomodate word lattices, as they would a word sequence, and either eliminate some variants of the phonological ambiguity because they cannot be made syntactically correct, or treat them as a syntactic ambiguity problem, using whatever means at their disposal for this purpose.
I was reading this question Syntactic and semantic ambiguity, and there is a comment from @jlawler on how the sentence "He's mad" have different syntactic affordances: Original comment: "He's mad" can mean "He's angry" or "He's crazy", but the syntax is the same. Jlawler's reply: Though the two senses have different syntactic affordances.
Somewhat ambiguous, but, lacking strong semantic clues, the reader will not have much doubt that "that" refers to the monkeys. In speech, the use of accents could make the pronoun a bit more flexible. D. *I gave the bananas quickly, before the storm reached the forest, to the friendly but fastidious monkeys that I had kept stored in the freezer.
The data that have appeared in the question, the answers, and the comments support this hypothesis. I have not yet encountered an example in my own explorations that contradict it. Here are the examples that appear on this page: (2) **Because** he loves them, Arthur does **not** punish his children. (3) At **every** party, Fred did **not** dance.
Then, the question remains of when such an ambiguous analysis is acceptable. What are the conjunctions that allow the observed ambiguity. We have so far examples involving exclusively conjunctions with a causal undertone, though the direction of the causality may vary. I found another example, without causality, which may shed some light on this.
Apparently this is because every man loves a woman contains scope ambiguity. Is this because of the quantifiers every and a? Or just every? (Is a a quantifier?) Then, what type of ambiguity do these other readings result from (the second is a restatement of (1) above): Every man loves one woman each; Every man loves at least one woman each
That removes the ambiguity, but alters the word order. One must conclude that diagramming with such strict rules cannot accurately represent English sentences — or at least, it exposes any ambiguity. Consider the sentence "He looked at the chair with one eye".